The multi-layered laminated windows on aircraft don't "shoot out".

[People have shot up planes before, you know. Both in actual acts of terrorism and in testing.]

Neither do aircraft.

The pressurisation pumps are more than capable of keeping up with the amount of air leaking through a thumb-sized hole.

Click the link, it isn't a "paper" it's a newspaper, and the Tribune article isn't paywalled. (Or at least isn't immediately.)

The article is written as if the yellow-timing issue was something the newspaper had previously caught the city on, while the study is a new thing they've done. Ie, the city reverted the timing to normal before the Tribune commissioned the study. But I'm reading between the lines, it isn't clear, and the "study" isn't published (in the normal sense), so there's no way to know for sure.

Nice attempt to move the goalposts.

However, none of that was related to ShanghaiBill's query, which was whether the change in the yellow-timing coincided with the study. Something that neither the summary nor the Tribune article make clear (although the way the article is written suggests to me the reversion pre-dates the study.) Nor did anything you linked to.

You failed to read ShanghaiBill's comment properly, then went on a rant about him failing to read the summary. Just accept that you were wrong, apologise to ShanghaiBill, and move on. Being wrong doesn't make you a bad person. Trying to twist out of it to save face does.

People have been trying to make driving safer.

Driving is now safer.

Laws to make driving safer were therefore hysterical and stupid.

The key part of ShanghaiBill's query was "in the intersections studied".

In the Tribune article, as in the summary, the comment about the change in the yellow-timing was a completely separate part of the article from that discussing the findings of their commissioned study. From the article I get the impression that the Tribune investigation which led to the reversal of the city's policy pre-dated the newspaper commissioning the study and therefore wasn't a confounding factor, however there's nothing in the summary that makes that clear. (And even in the article, I'm only interpreting the language, it isn't specifically stated.)

Surprisingly, much of the casting works really well.

(Exceptions are that Bones seems miscast and Grant just sucks as Sulu. Grant isn't just hammy overacting, but doing an exaggerated comedic impersonation of hammy-overacting. I guess the producers get cheap props that way, so... the needs of the many...)

Ridley Scott directed Alien. James Cameron wrote and directed Aliens.

He's also picked some absolute shockers. And the ratio of gems to shit seems to fall over time. Most of his recent work, even in otherwise good films, seems phoned in.

Do you realise how many layers you're adding just to preserve a theory that both the author of the original story and writer of the damn screenplay said wasn't valid? Just give it up.

The analogy drawn between Deckard and the replicants was meant to show the dehumanisation of his job, his life, that he needed Rachel in order to become "human" again, not that he was a super-secret special replicant allowed to roam freely in violation of the very law enforced by the agency that is employing him.

Errr, slashdot doesn't have a dictionary. Your browser does. Right-click the highlighted word, "add to dictionary". Bam! Done.

While I see your point, all of those certification schemes you see on products (whether "dolphin safe" or "heartsmart" or "sustainable forests"), those companies had to pay to join. The money is, generally, used to verify that the company is compliant with the scheme's goals.

This is no different. It's an attempt by Eyeo to find a balance between dangerous/intrusive ads and allowing content providers to earn a living. But doing so has costs, so if your company wants Eyeo to grant you an exception because you are a responsible advertiser, you need to pay for that extra service.

You don't want to receive something for nothing, do you? Surely the irony would kill you.

Humans want all of it, for free, and now. If they can't have it under those terms, blaming "stealing" on the providers is only half of the story.

Meanwhile, Patreon, Kickstarter, Indiegogo...

A compromise would be to let customers indicate whether they want or need to use anonymiser services (wither TOR or conventional proxies). Much like customers who do/don't use their credit cards overseas. Very very few customers would choose this (or even understand the option), so it wouldn't reduce the protective effect compared to a blanket ban on TOR.

This seems very common in the US. The weird, almost religious belief in the "efficiency of business/inefficiency of government" that legislators choose the worst possible combination of business and government. All the loss of control of out-sourcing a monopoly, while retaining all the stupidity and corruption of bureaucracy.

The weirdest thing is that this hatred of "government" seems to come, without a trace of irony, from politicians.